By Faridat Salifu
There are high expectations that talks at the upcoming COP28 climate summit must yield a breakthrough on how richer countries should compensate poorer nations for the effects of climate-related extreme weather events.
Weeks ago, it was announced that higher-income countries had finally fulfilled their commitment made in 2009 to provide lower-income countries with US$100 billion of climate financing each year from 2020, albeit more than two years late. This funding aimed to cover costs associated with climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.
However, a new focal point in climate finance has emerged with the introduction of ‘loss-and-damage’ funding. This type of funding is designed to aid in the recovery from the losses and damage incurred by climate-vulnerable countries due to more frequent and severe extreme weather events as a result of climate change.
With the COP28 summit approaching, discussions on operationalizing the loss-and-damage fund have made limited progress. After five meetings, countries have agreed that the fund will be hosted by the World Bank in Washington DC on an interim basis, although some consider this to be a temporary solution.
There are concerns that the bank’s involvement, especially given its recent focus on climate change, might not provide a permanent solution as political changes in leadership could influence its operations.
Environmentalists, such as Nnimmo Bassey, has already questioned the rationale behind the World Bank Hosting the Loss and Damage Fund.
Bassey, who is the Executive Director of Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), at a recent programme in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, said there is the possibility of the World Bank holding back substantial percentage of the Loss and Damage Fund, and that by hosting it, the body may no longer be held accountable as to how much it is contributing.
Related Posts
Already, major questions remain have unanswered, such as who will contribute to the fund and to what extent, as well as the eligibility criteria for countries to receive funding.
Disagreements persist, with higher-income countries hesitant to be legally bound to contribute, while climate-vulnerable countries advocate for such commitments.
There are also differing views on which countries should be eligible for funding, with some advocating for only the lowest-income countries to qualify, excluding middle-income nations that may also require assistance.
Efforts are underway to break the deadlock, with researchers proposing solutions to expedite the release of loss-and-damage finance, which must match the pace of humanitarian assistance. One approach focuses on the need for smaller grants for grassroots community organizations, with simplified access rules, to facilitate rapid funding distribution.
Another proposal involves using climate data to predict vulnerability and allocate funding proactively, rather than waiting for countries to apply for funding after an event.
The upcoming COP28 summit is crucial in studying these proposed ideas and addressing remaining challenges in the design and execution of the fund.
The untimely passing of Saleemul Huq, a prominent figure in advocating for science-based environmental policy decisions, adds poignancy to the ongoing efforts to establish a loss-and-damage fund.
His commitment to advancing climate resilience demonstrates the importance of collaborative efforts in addressing climate-related challenges.
